Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.

[Gandalfs Beard]

Edit: In response to Gandalf's Beard

All of those listed believe in Jesus. Bart Ehrman is actually working on a book called "Did Jesus Exist" in which he explains why no serious scholar doubts his existence.

Riiiiiiight!!!

A few pages ago you could only name one Biblical Scholar that questioned the historicity of Jesus. A number of the Biblical Scholars listed, have written works questioning the existence of Jesus. And as you yourself have just admitted, Bart Ehrman is working on a book called "Did Jesus Exist?"
Let me know after you've read Bart Ehrman's book if he actually has evidence proving that Jesus existed, or that the New Testament writers told the truth.


GB

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

I don't really understand what you mean by "this thread is a search for truth via evidence, not a speculative debate". We use the same historical approach to assess when certain sources are lying, when they're sincere but wrong, and when they're telling the truth for the bible as for any other historical source from devoted followers.
At many points throughout the gospels the writers are telling the truth, and there is no extra-biblical source for the claim, just as many times throughout our stories about Pythagoras, his followers were telling the truth, even though there is not a critical source to back up the claim.

1) Where is your evidence that the NT authors were "telling the truth"?

2) The fact that there is little to no evidence for the existence of Pythagoras is not evidence that Jesus existed. Which several people have already pointed out to you.

GB

ETA: Speculative Debate is not evidence. The vast majority of Historical Figures have contemporaneous accounts by others as well as their own works, and/or physical evidence that they exist. The fact that you can point to several other historical figures as having little to no evidence of existence is not evidence of Jesus' existence. Unlike a few on this thread, I seriously doubt that Jesus actually existed as an historical personage. It's possible, but "it's possible" is not evidence.

 

[phelix]

Riiiiiiight!!!

A few pages ago you could only name one Biblical Scholar that questioned the historicity of Jesus. A number of the Biblical Scholars listed, have written works questioning the existence of Jesus. And as you yourself have just admitted, Bart Ehrman is working on a book called "Did Jesus Exist?"
Let me know after you've read Bart Ehrman's book if he actually has evidence proving that Jesus existed, or that the New Testament writers told the truth.


GB

A few pages ago I could name no biblical scholars at accredited universities that question the historicity of Jesus. I still can name none...
I could name one who is unable to get a teaching job, Rob Price. I can still only name one.
Bart Ehrman's book title is only that so as to be provocative and attention seeking. I have actually read all of his popular works (if that doesn't sound too sad...) and his dismissal of the jesus-as-myth theory is very clear. In an interview about the upcoming book, he said his main aim is to get rid of this unfounded belief.
(Oh and I was wrong when I said all of those listed believe in Jesus. A couple of them do not, but you labelled them all as bible scholars when actually most of them aren't.)

Edit: For the most recent post,
1) The reason for believing they're telling the truth is based on the historical criteria. e.g. how close are the sources to the narrated events? how well corroborated are they with other sources? how jarring is this event with regards to the characters described? how well does the story fit into the historical or social context? how plausible is the story? etc.
2) It is telling though. If you are going to believe Jesus didn't exist there is little space to believe that Pythagoras did. I'm not sure many people would feel comfortable saying Pythagoras didn't exist, so this is a useful point of leverage to get people to accept the historical method.

Oh and the vast majority of non-political historical figures do not have contemporary accounts. Dipping into wikipedia for minor philosophers from around that time: Aristippus (sources 200 years after death) Stilpo (150 years) Menippus (200 years). Have a fish around minor ancient philosophers yourself and you'll find the same sort of stuff for every single one. Our sources for Jesus are very good for the time period.
Yes they are not very good by modern historical standards. You are arguing that, because other history was bad, that doesn't make this historical source good, which is correct, but it does mean that in order to dismiss the gospels as historical sources, you must dismiss a large large amount of what we know from that time period.

 

[pakeha]

I don't really understand what you mean by "this thread is a search for truth via evidence, not a speculative debate". We use the same historical approach to assess when certain sources are lying, when they're sincere but wrong, and when they're telling the truth for the bible as for any other historical source from devoted followers.
At many points throughout the gospels the writers are telling the truth, and there is no extra-biblical source for the claim, just as many times throughout our stories about Pythagoras, his followers were telling the truth, even though there is not a critical source to back up the claim.

I'm still waiting for evidence, rather than assertions.

...

Edit: For the most recent post,
1) The reason for believing they're telling the truth is based on the historical criteria. e.g. how close are the sources to the narrated events? how well corroborated are they with other sources? how jarring is this event with regards to the characters described? how well does the story fit into the historical or social context? how plausible is the story? etc.
2) It is telling though. If you are going to believe Jesus didn't exist there is little space to believe that Pythagoras did. I'm not sure many people would feel comfortable saying Pythagoras didn't exist, so this is a useful point of leverage to get people to accept the historical method.

So.
Where is the evidence, phelix?

And again.
This thread isn't about the existence of Jesus.
Nor the existence of Pythagoras.
It's about the truthfulness of the writers of the NT.
For starters, why not try to show how the accounts of the NT writers about the trial of Jesus conform with the historical criteria you've mentioned

how close are the sources to the narrated events? how well corroborated are they with other sources? how jarring is this event with regards to the characters described? how well does the story fit into the historical or social context? how plausible is the story? etc.

Anyway.
What about that pizza?

 

[phelix]

I'm still waiting for evidence, rather than assertions.




So.
Where is the evidence, phelix?

And again.
This thread isn't about the existence of Jesus.
Nor the existence of Pythagoras.
It's about the truthfulness of the writers of the NT.
For starters, why not try to show how the accounts of the NT writers about the trial of Jesus conform with the historical criteria you've mentioned


Anyway.
What about that pizza?

The trial of Jesus does not conform with the historical criteria we usually apply, and so there is not good reason for a historian to believe that the description of the trial is at all useful.
As I have said, the evidence comes from applying the historical criteria to the sources available. When that is done, we find that there are numerous places where the gospel writers were likely to have been telling the truth, such as Jesus' association with John the Baptist.
Do remember that the opposite stance is not the default. Even if no argument at all is made for a sincere historical source being true, the opposite case is that it is composed entirely of lies or delusions. For this reason, it is sensible to hesitate before seriously considering the chance that no truth is present in a sincere historical source.

 

[Larechar]

Given the initial poster's inability to provide someone who disputes this, I'd be interested to see if you can, or indeed if you can answer the arguments given

...It's easy to lump everyone into one bin.

phelix, I was answering for what I believed Akhenaten's reasons for saying what s/he said were; I was not defining anything you'd said as, "inevitably failing," because I lack the research to be able to. However,

The trial of Jesus does not conform with the historical criteria we usually apply, and so there is not good reason for a historian to believe that the description of the trial is at all useful.
As I have said, the evidence comes from applying the historical criteria to the sources available. When that is done, we find that there are numerous places where the gospel writers were likely to have been telling the truth, such as Jesus' association with John the Baptist.

is still speculation, not "undisputed fact."

eta

Do remember that the opposite stance is not the default. Even if no argument at all is made for a sincere historical source being true, the opposite case is that it is composed entirely of lies or delusions. For this reason, it is sensible to hesitate before seriously considering the chance that no truth is present in a sincere historical source.

The argument [thread name] is that the NT writers wrote the truth, which requires evidence if proposed. Cherry-picking what was real or what wasn't is not part of the thread. As such, the opposite case is of the mind that after 500 pages and almost three years evidence has still not been provided, which has been stated numerous times in the last three pages alone.

 

[phelix]

phelix, I was answering for what I believed Akhenaten's reasons for saying what s/he said were; I was not defining anything you'd said as, "inevitably failing," because I lack the research to be able to. However,



is still speculation, not "undisputed fact."

I guess it depends what level you set the requirement at for fact.

As someone noted, there are relevant scholars at accredited universities in the 9/11 truth movement.

That makes the reality of 9/11 more disputed than the reality of Jesus' existence.

I guess I could use terms like "undisputed theory" or "undisputed possibility" but I would feel uncomfortable using such terms with other parts of history that nobody doubts.

eta:

The argument [thread name] is that the NT writers wrote the truth, which requires evidence if proposed. Cherry-picking what was real or what wasn't is not part of the thread. As such, the opposite case is of the mind that after 500 pages and almost three years evidence has still not been provided, which has been stated numerous times in the last three pages alone.

I don't understand why "cherry-picking" is not part of the thread. That is the nature of historical sources. The gospel writers did write the truth... sometimes.
If you do not "cherry-pick" and instead make arguments that "yes they wrote the truth" or "no they didn't write the truth" then both sides will be wrong.
As I have said, the evidence comes from applying the historical method to the sources provided.
"What evidence is there that the sources for the holocaust are correct?" someone might ask. There is no "evidence". You have to apply the historical method to the sources we have for the holocaust. You will find that every single one of them is flawed. Oh no! Maybe the holocaust didn't happen!?!? But it did, because even with those flaws, you can analyse the sources and find out which bits are true and which bits aren't. You then find what the preponderance of evidence points to, and in the case of the holocaust, it is clear that it happened.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

A few pages ago I could name no biblical scholars at accredited universities that question the historicity of Jesus. I still can name none...
I could name one who is unable to get a teaching job, Rob Price. I can still only name one.
Bart Ehrman's book title is only that so as to be provocative and attention seeking. I have actually read all of his popular works (if that doesn't sound too sad...) and his dismissal of the jesus-as-myth theory is very clear. In an interview about the upcoming book, he said his main aim is to get rid of this unfounded belief.
(Oh and I was wrong when I said all of those listed believe in Jesus. A couple of them do not, but you labelled them all as bible scholars when actually most of them aren't.)

If Bart Ehrman can't actually offer evidence in his book questioning existence of Jesus then it doesn't count as evidence for the existence of Jesus or that the NT authors were telling the truth.

Let's move on to John Loftus

John W loftus:
I began to understand my faith and to minister it. I graduated from Great Lakes Christian (Bible) College, Lansing Michigan, in 1977. Afterward I became the Associate Minister in Kalkaska, MI, for two years. Then I attended Lincoln Christian Seminary (LCS), Lincoln, IL, and graduated in 1982 with M.A. and M.Div. degrees, under the mentoring of Dr. James D. Strauss. While at LCS I was the founding editor for the now defunct apologetical quarterly, A Journal For Christian Studies. After LCS I attended Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (TEDS), and graduated in 1985 with a Th.M degree, under the mentoring of Dr. William Lane Craig, considered by many to be the foremost defender of the empty tomb of Jesus and his bodily resurrection from the grave. I also took classes at Marquette University in a Ph.D. program with a double major in Philosophy and Ethics, but I didn’t finish because I lacked the needed funds to stay in school and because I wanted to be close to my Dad who was dying of cancer.

That sounds like a Biblical Scholar to me.

Here's an excerpt from one of his blogs

Did Jesus Exist?

Unless we're willing to throw out the whole New Testament, and much of it can indeed be thrown out, then there is one test which can be found within its pages to show there was probably an original founder of the Jesus cult. It's this: The criterion of embarrassment. It seems improbable to me....

Notice where he says "probable" and an "original founder of the Jesus Cult."

He doesn't claim that he believes that Jesus actually existed, which suggests that he knows that he can't prove there is a real Jesus, just a "probable founder." Well DUHHHH!!! Of course there was a "founder."

....that these writers invented a prediction of the eschaton to happen in their generation which had to continually be explained away because it never happened--that is, unless there was someone who initially predicted that the "Son of Man" in Daniel 7 was to return in his own day and era. As we date the books of the NT we see the goal posts continually being moved to allow this prediction to be put off until it becomes so watered down that the 2nd century epistle of 2nd Peter says "a day with the lord is like a thousand years."[

This sounds remarkably like he is NOT claiming that the NT authors were telling the Truth. Which, again, suggests he knows that he doesn't actually have evidence that Jesus existed.

There have been a plethora of millennial movements down through the ages and Jewish literature both before and afterward shows us they expected this event. So the existence of such a prophetic person seems to be a reasonable one. We have evidence that people in that period expected such an event. And we see from the criterion of embarrassment in the NT that later and later documents continued to explain away why it didn't happen as time moved on.

Again, he's not actually claiming that Jesus existed; he's only suggesting that a "prophetic person" might be "reasonable."

From this evidence we don't need extra-biblical evidence to support his existence, but the strongest extra-biblical evidence we have is Josephus who stated that James was the brother of Jesus (Antiquities 20,9,1).

1) BOLDED: See how he uses rhetoric to give himself an out, should anyone actually call his bluff.

2) HILITE: Again, he's giving himself out when he says that "the strongest evidence"--which actually means he realizes it's pretty feeble evidence. And as a Biblical Scholar, he knows full well that the Antiquities of the Jews only exists in 11th century parchments and may actually be forged--at least in part (I discuss this explicitly somewhere on this thread).

So we can "Reasonably" claim that he's not actually certain of Jesus' existence at all. Now I can through each of the Biblical Scholars in turn and dissect what they are actually saying with words like "probably," and "reasonably," and "assume," and "strongest evidence." Whenever they use words like these it demonstrates that they aren't at all certain of Jesus' existence.

I could go through every Biblical Scholar on that list and dissect them in this manner, but that would be awfully tedious and drive everyone nuts

Edit: For the most recent post,
1) The reason for believing they're telling the truth is based on the historical criteria. e.g. how close are the sources to the narrated events? how well corroborated are they with other sources? how jarring is this event with regards to the characters described? how well does the story fit into the historical or social context? how plausible is the story? etc.

Everything in this paragraph has been discussed to death on this thread. And none of it reaches the standards of "evidence."

2) It is telling though. If you are going to believe Jesus didn't exist there is little space to believe that Pythagoras did. I'm not sure many people would feel comfortable saying Pythagoras didn't exist, so this is a useful point of leverage to get people to accept the historical method.

This fallacy has been pointed out to you NUMEROUS times now. the fact that Pythagoras likely didn't exist has no bearing on the non-existence of evidence for Jesus or the NT authors' veracity.

Remember what I said about there being many Biblical Scholars at this forum? They are nearly ALL atheists or agnostics, and are well versed in Biblical Scholarship. I myself have been doing this for at least 25 years now. But because of the anonymity the internet provides, you can only judge how good our scholarship is by the evidence provided, and whether we are willing to admit our mistakes when called on them.

GB

 

[pakeha]

The trial of Jesus does not conform with the historical criteria we usually apply, and so there is not good reason for a historian to believe that the description of the trial is at all useful.

You mean to say, the NT writers weren't telling the truth.

As I have said, the evidence comes from applying the historical criteria to the sources available. When that is done, we find that there are numerous places where the gospel writers were likely to have been telling the truth, such as Jesus' association with John the Baptist.

Again, assertions don't cut it here on this particular thread.
Could you post up the evidence to back up this assertion about 'the numerous places where the gospel writers were likely to have been telling the truth...'

Do remember that the opposite stance is not the default. Even if no argument at all is made for a sincere historical source being true, the opposite case is that it is composed entirely of lies or delusions. For this reason, it is sensible to hesitate before seriously considering the chance that no truth is present in a sincere historical source.

Could you explain why the NT is a sincere historical source, please?

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

Anyway.
What about that pizza?

You'll have to back to the last page and look at one of my links. I didn't know I was "Hotlinking" and I'm not even sure what that means.


GB

 

[RoboTimbo]

I was hoping that DOC would make an especial effort to show some evidence by page 500.

29 to go.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

"What evidence is there that the sources for the holocaust are correct?" someone might ask. There is no "evidence". You have to apply the historical method to the sources we have for the holocaust. You will find that every single one of them is flawed. Oh no! Maybe the holocaust didn't happen!?!? But it did, because even with those flaws, you can analyse the sources and find out which bits are true and which bits aren't. You then find what the preponderance of evidence points to, and in the case of the holocaust, it is clear that it happened.

You CAN'T be bloody serious!!!!??? :

There is TONS of PHYSICAL evidence. We don't need to apply the "historical method."

GB

 

[phelix]

Yes, I recalled John Loftus as the guy from debunkingchristianity so replaced my claim about his belief in Jesus with me dismissing him as a biblical scholar at an accredited university, which indeed he isn't.
Also, of the points you mentioned, the one about extra-biblical sources was rephrased in what I think is an unhelpful manner. Josephus is the best extra-biblical source, and it is very flimsy. This is why I haven't mentioned Josephus or any of the other oft-cited extra-biblical sources. The gospels (canonical and non-canonical) are better sources.

"Everything in this paragraph has been discussed to death on this thread. And none of it reaches the standards of "evidence.""

Of course it does. If we say that none of the historical criteria reach the standards of evidence, then a massive chunk of our historical knowledge gets thrown out. Of course, no one criterion is good on its own. The logic in each of them has flaws, but they are still good for suggesting what is likely to be true.

"This fallacy has been pointed out to you NUMEROUS times now. the fact that Pythagoras likely didn't exist has no bearing on the non-existence of evidence for Jesus or the NT authors' veracity."
Indeed you have argued that, and I responded to it. The fact that much history from the time period is poor does not mean that another piece of poor history from the time period is good, naturally. But it does mean that we are on risky ground if we choose to dismiss all historical value of one of these sources. You could argue that the historical sources for Jesus are poor, and they are. You could argue that the historical sources for pythagoras etc. are poor, and they are. If you choose to argue that this means Jesus possibly didn't exist, then to be consistent you would have to do the same for many other people, including pythagoras. I'm not sure you would be willing to do this.

"Remember what I said about there being many Biblical Scholars at this forum? They are nearly ALL atheists or agnostics, and are well versed in Biblical Scholarship. I myself have been doing this for at least 25 years now. But because of the anonymity the internet provides, you can only judge how good our scholarship is by the evidence provided, and whether we are willing to admit our mistakes when called on them."
Very well. On the last page I had written the following:
"I guess anyone who teaches the historical approach to the bible in an accredited university I would consider a reliable scholar. They all believe Jesus existed..."
And you had responded saying no they don't.
Name one who doesn't, or accept you were wrong on this point.

 

[phelix]

You CAN'T be bloody serious!!!!??? :

There is TONS of PHYSICAL evidence. We don't need to apply the "historical method."

GB

Yes we do... there are people who doubt the holocaust, and have an argument against every piece of evidence presented. The historical method needs to be applied to find where the preponderance of evidence points.

 

[phelix]

You mean to say, the NT writers weren't telling the truth.

Yes, though that wording applies they were lying, which also may not be the case. They were probably wrong though.

Again, assertions don't cut it here on this particular thread.
Could you post up the evidence to back up this assertion about 'the numerous places where the gospel writers were likely to have been telling the truth...'

I have said what the evidence is: the application of the historical method to the sources given.

Could you explain why the NT is a sincere historical source, please?

Parts of the NT are sincere historical sources because they are presented as historical sources. Thus they are either sincere historical sources, or total fakes. The idea of total fakes is quickly ruled out due to the known different authors with corroborating yet unique reports.

 

[pakeha]

You'll have to back to the last page and look at one of my links. I didn't know I was "Hotlinking" and I'm not even sure what that means.


GB

No worries. I saw the jesus pizza earlier

...I have said what the evidence is: the application of the historical method to the sources given.

Show us some examples of what you mean.
From the NT.
This sounds interesting.

Parts of the NT are sincere historical sources because they are presented as historical sources. Thus they are either sincere historical sources, or total fakes. The idea of total fakes is quickly ruled out due to the known different authors with corroborating yet unique reports

Parts of the NT are sincere historical sources because they are presented as such?
Or they are fakes?
'All or nothing' is your argument? That makes no sense to me at all, especially in light of those accounts of Jesus' trial.

And who are these known different authors 'with corroborating yet unique reports'?

 

[Resume]

Parts of the NT are sincere historical sources because they are presented as historical sources.

Will he go 'round in circles . . ?

Yes, yes he will.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

PLEASE use quote tags!

Yes, I recalled John Loftus as the guy from debunkingchristianity so replaced my claim about his belief in Jesus with me dismissing him as a biblical scholar at an accredited university, which indeed he isn't.

Well that's VERY convenient for you isn't it. Loftus isn't credible because he didn't graduate from a University you approve of.

Also, of the points you mentioned, the one about extra-biblical sources was rephrased in what I think is an unhelpful manner. Josephus is the best extra-biblical source, and it is very flimsy. This is why I haven't mentioned Josephus or any of the other oft-cited extra-biblical sources. The gospels (canonical and non-canonical) are better sources.

Yes! Flimsy! That's what happens when the only piece of "evidence" exists in tattered remnants of 11th century manuscripts. And there is no extra-biblical evidence. All the available evidence demonstrates only that Christians existed. It does not demonstrate that Jesus existed.

"Everything in this paragraph has been discussed to death on this thread. And none of it reaches the standards of "evidence.""

Of course it does. If we say that none of the historical criteria reach the standards of evidence, then a massive chunk of our historical knowledge gets thrown out. Of course, no one criterion is good on its own. The logic in each of them has flaws, but they are still good for suggesting what is likely to be true.

Actually it's NOT. You obviously have no clue as to what constitutes evidence. You're as bad as DOC. I don't believe that you are an Atheist.

"This fallacy has been pointed out to you NUMEROUS times now. the fact that Pythagoras likely didn't exist has no bearing on the non-existence of evidence for Jesus or the NT authors' veracity."

Indeed you have argued that, and I responded to it. The fact that much history from the time period is poor does not mean that another piece of poor history from the time period is good, naturally. But it does mean that we are on risky ground if we choose to dismiss all historical value of one of these sources. You could argue that the historical sources for Jesus are poor, and they are. You could argue that the historical sources for pythagoras etc. are poor, and they are. If you choose to argue that this means Jesus possibly didn't exist, then to be consistent you would have to do the same for many other people, including pythagoras. I'm not sure you would be willing to do this.

Yes, you "responded".... if you mean by "responding" that you keep repeating your already debunked statements (are you sure you're not DOC pretending to be an Atheist?).

"Remember what I said about there being many Biblical Scholars at this forum? They are nearly ALL atheists or agnostics, and are well versed in Biblical Scholarship. I myself have been doing this for at least 25 years now. But because of the anonymity the internet provides, you can only judge how good our scholarship is by the evidence provided, and whether we are willing to admit our mistakes when called on them."

Very well. On the last page I had written the following:
"I guess anyone who teaches the historical approach to the bible in an accredited university I would consider a reliable scholar. They all believe Jesus existed..."

That's your problem if you won't accept legitimate Biblical Scholars because they don't meet your high "standards" (which are pretty low if your posts are any example).

And you had responded saying no they don't.
Name one who doesn't, or accept you were wrong on this point.

No! I (and others) have already wasted a lot of valuable time demonstrating that you have nothing to back your assertions.

Akhenaten! he's all yours.

GB

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

Okay Phelix! I'm giving you one last chance to come clean!

Prove you're an Atheist.

And prove that you've actually been to college and got a Masters or a PHD or something...anything. Even one semester of Logic 101 would be something.


GB

 

[ddt]

Yes we do... there are people who doubt the holocaust, and have an argument against every piece of evidence presented. The historical method needs to be applied to find where the preponderance of evidence points.

Not really. Go over to the CT section and see those guys in action. They try to raise doubts about the authenticity of the Wannsee minutes, or claim that Hoess was tortured before his testimony at Nuremberg. Mention Eichmann's testimony, or the Höfle telegram, or Lukaszewiecz' 1946 report on human ashes at Treblinka and they try to change the subject. Just a couple of pieces of evidence right off the top of my head.

Anyway, the OP of this thread contends that the NT writers wrote the truth and nothing but the truth. Which is obviously false, as the gospels are contradictory on many points. To take a recent topic of discussion: Luke 2 describes how Jesus was born during a Roman census instituted by governor Quirinius, whereas Matthew claims he was born during Herod the Great's reign. That's at least 10 years difference. Obviously, one of them (or both) is (are) wrong. The OP has then trotted out some "scholars" who claimed a very tortured translation of Luke 2:2 - without giving the details how that translation can even be a correct translation.

The gospels are obviously foremost theology. When you claim:

Parts of the NT are sincere historical sources because they are presented as historical sources.

how can you distinguish this from just giving a historical background? Nowadays novelists who write historical novels tend to be good at providing a convincing historical background to their otherwise fictional story. Why not the gospel writers too?